Military

February 4, 2000

THE MONTH OF AFRICA: AIDS, DROC ON 'THE FRONTBURNER' AT THE UN

The U.S.-initiated Month of Africa at the UN Security Council sparked commentary--mostly accolades--from around the globe. But writers judged that the real litmus test of U.S. and international concern about the continent will be in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DROC). Several writers determined that the UN has been "reluctant" to intervene there because of a "double standard," devoting resources to the resolution of European and Asian conflicts to the detriment of those in Africa and because of a fear, deemed "not without reason" of becoming imbroiled in an African "quagmire" binding troops for years. These were themes:

AIDS/HIV: The recognition, "however long overdue," that AIDS is "a crisis of apocalyptic proportions" in Africa was heartily welcomed in Africa and beyond. African journalists, in particular, expressed appreciation to the U.S. for this "eye-opener" on the "unique challenge" that the disease poses to the human race and the "serious collaborative efforts" required "to confront it." There were some detractors, however, with a Nigerian writer suggesting that "what Africa really needs" is not a UN session but a "total write-off of the debt owed to both the Paris and London Clubs" in order to redistribute resources to the health sector. The prevailing view though, expressed by a South African paper, was that "Africa desperately needs the world's help" in frankly addressing AIDS, "if only to galvanize its own leaders." The session also drew intense interest in Asia, which some pundits feared might become the "next epicenter" of the disease. A Singapore paper objected to "First World" drug companies having "the exclusive right to license the drugs available to treat AIDS," which eliminate "cheaply produced drugs" that may "save lives in Africa."

DROC: The Congolese press by and large applauded the special UNSC session on the Democratic Republic of the Congo as a step in the right direction in dispelling the impression that the U.S. is "indifferent" to the "imbroglio" consuming their nation. Pro-moderate-opposition Le Potentiel judged that the session had "opened the eyes of the Congo's people and of all other parties involved in the war in DROC." Dubbing the newfound attention "a dream," pro-government Le Palmares intoned, "One might believe that DROC was suddenly wearing the features of the Middle East." But it was precisely this point, African writers beyond the DROC contended, which illustrates that the international community has been "unfair" to Africa in the area of peacekeeping and conflict resolution and that "the Kosovo example...continues to warp the African debate on Congo." Expressing a minority view, a Malawian commentator said that the issue at stake is not a question of sending foreign troops to bring peace to the DROC, but whether the protagonists have "the political will" to bring peace to their country.

U.S. POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS: Commentators judged that Vice President Gore, who may garner black voters, and that Ambassador Holbrooke, "who is allegedly making a bid to become Gore's secretary of state," would both be "well served" by sponsoring the UN month on Africa. But some spoke of the "fortuitousness" of Mr. Holbrooke's "ambition," saying that it provided "a brief window of opportunity" for raising Africa's profile and bringing some resolution to the DROC conflict--a top priority for African policymakers.

EDITOR: Gail Hamer Burke

EDITOR'S NOTE: This survey is based on 36 reports from 17 countries, January 11 - February 4. Editorial excerpts are grouped by region; editorials from each country are listed from the most recent date.

AFRICA

BURKINA FASO: "Kofi Annan's Difficult Wager"

Independent Le Pays (1/25) carried this under the rubric, "Internal Dialogue:" "The display of an active and interested diplomacy conducted by France and the United States in Africa is really engaged in pulling a fast one in the region. In brief, they are two thieves with noble intentions but who in reality entertain the secret dream of a balkanized Congo. Under these conditions, Kofi Annan will need a lot of time to bring back peace in the DROC. Let's hope it's only science fiction."

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO: "UNSC Resolution Blocked"

Pro-opposition Le Phare commented (2/3), "According to reliable sources in New York, the UNSC is experiencing difficulties in drafting a resolution on DROC's crisis. The UNSC must develop a plan regarding the deployment of peacekeeping forces and the inter-Congolese talks. The UNSC is evidently concerned over a long discussion on President Kabila's status during DROC's future transition. The debate is poisoning the UN corridors, and is seen as blocking the Lusaka cease-fire agreement."

"Change Of Policy And People For A New Momentum"

Pro-moderate-opposition Le Potentiel remarked (2/3), "The pre-New York should not be equal to the post-New York, because the special UNSC session opened the eyes of the Congo's people and of all other parties involved in the war in DROC. They were all aware of the necessity of the Lusaka Accord, which is the best framework for resolving the crisis and promoting a favorable environment in the sub-region."

"U.S. Will Drop DROC's Rebels"

Pro-government L'Observateur held (2/3), "The United States did not have anything to hide and preferred to listen to Kabila, whom the United States knows was right to take as a witness its [America's] public opinion. Their behavior [the United States] was the only manner for the United States to drop the aggressors and their Congolese rebels with dignity without being cowards in the eyes of any party."

"War In DROC: U.S. Congress Has The Last Decision"

Pro-opposition La Tempete des Tropiques held (2/3), "A lot of meetings could be held concerning DROC's issues, but as long as the Congress has not decided anything, the situation in the country will remain unchanged. Secretary Albright, who chaired the UNSC presidency, will take DROC's case to Congress in order to ask to obtain the means for implementing resolutions engaging the United States in its responsibilities. And the war in DROC will stop."

"Americans Are Finally Out Of Their Indifference"

President Kabila's participation in the special UNSC session on the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DROC) received wide coverage and comment in all newspapers (1/24). Even government-backed L'Avenir whose editor, Mr. Pius Muabilu, is part of the presidential delegation, acknowledged for the first time the United States' determination aimed at ending

DROC's crisis. Pro-government Le Palmares held (1/24), "Twenty-four hours before leaving Kinshasa, the Congolese president cultivated a total mystery regarding his response to the invitation tendered to him by Americans on the New York 'Special Session on DROC.' In fact, the masters of the world--who had adopted an ambiguous stand since the beginning of hostilities in DROC--emerged from their indifference for the first time. They [Americans] offered their own territory as a venue in order to discuss the Congolese imbroglio. One could say that it is a dream. One could believe that DROC was suddenly wearing the features of the Middle East."

MALAWI: "Hypocrisy In DROC Civil War"

An opinion piece in the independent Daily Times (1/27) by Horace Somanje, editor of the Times' sister paper, the Malawi News, said: "The United States, which is one of the permanent members of the Security Council, seems reluctant to buy the African plea for a UN peacekeeping force in the DROC. If an African peacekeeping force has failed to contain what is an African problem, one wonders how a similar UN force consisting of troops from member countries other than Africa will succesd in resolving the conflict in the DROC. Kabila himself has proved before to be an intransigent character who has flatly rejected advise to talk to his political adversaries if he expects to bring peace to his country. Apart from excluding the so-called rebels from any peace talks, Kabila has called on troops from Uganda and Rwanda, who support the rebels, to be withdrawn from the DROC before he can consider whether or not to talk to his adversaries. As long as Kabila continues to be intransigent in conducting the affairs of his country, the OAU, SADC and the United Nations will be wasting a lot of money, time and energy convening so-called peace conferences which will ultimately come to naught."

NAMIBIA: "The Month Of Africa"

German-language Allgemeine Zeitung asserted (1/13): "In the desperate search for new words and effective measures for an old problem--HIV/AIDS--the UN has called the immune-deficiency 'the aggressor which must be beaten.'... The United States intends to increase its contribution for combatting this epidemic from $100 million to $325 million until the year 2001. According to a UN department for the combating of AIDS report for the year 1998, 200,000 people were killed in civil war and related conflict. The AIDS epidemic increases this tenfold: 2.2 million people. Day by day and month by month many organizations and politicians formulate new proposals and apply more exercises in the hope to successfully combat the AIDS epidemic. Nothing has worked up until now. Meanwhile, AIDS and Africa as a theme serves to create a distinctive edge for Al Gore in the upcoming elections."

NIGERIA: "Fair Deal, Not Handouts"

The Lagos-based independent daily Comet (2/1), ran an editorial on U.S. interest in Africa saying: "The United Nations declared January 'Africa Month.' Following this example, the United States, which is currently the President of the Security Council, also decided to focus on Africa during its term.... We welcome any focus on Africa by the international community, but past experience inclines us to receive this piece of news with skepticism, if not with cynicism. What Africa really needs is total write-off of the debt owed to both the Paris and London Clubs. The world should know that what is being owed is the result of compounded interests of the capital and accumulated interests. In most cases, the debt has been paid many times over.... If the United States wants to be taken seriously, it should lead the campaign for total write-off of Africa's debts as well as help retrieve money stolen from our continent.... What Africa needs is not handouts, but fair and equitable trade which the United States and her allies have refused to grant through manipulation of the World Trade Organization (WTO), a problem recently underscored by the failure of the Seattle WTO conference."

"Collaborative Efforts To Confront AIDS"

Lagos-based, independent National Concord opined (1/19), "With the new interest shown by the UN Council in the battle against the dreaded AIDS, countries of the world would have to reconsider their lukewarm attitude about the reality of the disease.... The $100-million offer from the United States in the battle against AIDS is therefore a commendable eye-opener to what the rest of the developed world, particularly member nations of the UN Security Council, needs to do, if indeed the heart of the security agenda is protecting lives. Given the unbelievable rate of the spread of the disease and its victims worldwide, AIDS indeed poses a unique challenge to the human race, requiring serious collaborative efforts to confront it."

"Africa Needs More Than An AIDS Session"

The Lagos-based, 60 percent federal government-owned Daily Times stressed (1/14): "The UN Security Council, at the instance of the United States, began a special session on the threat of AIDS to Africa. Vice President Al Gore, who announced a new American initiative in combatting the disease in Africa, also disclosed that Washington is to make available an additional $100 million to fight AIDS. Although this gesture is a demonstration of the international community's acknowledgement that the AIDS scourge is beyond Africa's resources to fight, a lot more still needs to be done to mitigate the conditions which make it possible for the infection to spread. There is a need to reduce Africa's huge debt burden so that what currently goes into loan and interest payment can be channeled towards health and other poverty alleviation programs."

SOUTH AFRICA: "Weary West Shies Away From New Approach To African Travail"

Foreign correspondent for the Sunday Independent Ross Herbert, opined (1/30), "Like actors reading from scripts, Africa and the powers of the UN Security Council heatedly talked past each other this week in an extraordinary debate on the war-torn Congo. Despite the presence of seven African heads of state and a host of senior American politicians, the session produced only a vague statement declaring an intent to work towards authorizing peacekeepers.... That so many could achieve so little reflects the profound misunderstanding between African leaders and Western powers, and the political problems standing in the way of an enduring peace in Congo.... Still, the issue of double standards for Africa--the Kosovo example--continues to warp the African debate on Congo.... While military force could dissuade Serbia from fighting by destroying its infrastructure, Congo and its many warlords have little infrastructure to lose. Moreover, thrashing the many combatants would not make them any more interested in political dialogue and negotiation.... Kabila...has so far ruled by decree and suppressed political and journalistic opposition. Any deal would involve sharing power during a transition and ultimately subject his inept, heavy-handed regime to a vote. His determination not to negotiate may be why Kabila used this week's debate to launch a tirade against South Africa. Given his track record of obstruction and rhetoric renouncing his pledge to negotiate with rebels, Kabila, rather than the troops, ought to have been the focus in New York."

"UN Can Only Do So Much In Africa"

The independent, centrist Pretoria News (2/1) commented, "UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has recommended that the UN should send 5,537 troops to the DROC. There should be a natural partnership between the UN and Africa to deal with conflict. The timing is right for regional and multilateral approaches to conflict resolution. But where is the OAU? The UN can only do so much. African leaders, through organizations such as the OAU, should take the lead in dealing with their own conflicts. Without the political will in Africa, nothing the UN tries can possibly work."

''U.S. Plays Jesse Helms As Pawn In The Diplomacy Game"

Washington correspondent for independent Business Day Simon Barber wrote (1/26) in his op-ed piece, "Even diplomats yet to be persuaded of Holbrooke's sincerity on Africa concede that only the United States has the clout to get all the official Congo combatants together.... Now take a closer look at what Helms actually said to the Security Council, and more particularly at what he did not say.... Nowhere, and this the key, did he specifically or in principle object to the United States' contributing to peacekeeping operations in Africa either financially, with equipment or even with personnel, so long as they remained under U.S. command.... In Helms, Holbrooke sees cover and leverage: At minimum a fall guy should Africa Month turn out to be just another Clinton administration exercise in spin and propaganda; alternatively the usefully threatening member of a good cop/bad cop routine."

"Clinton Era Jinxed By Helms's Antics"

The independent Cape Times held (1/24) in an op-ed piece by Tony Karon, "Like a family secret best left unmentioned...Helms has haunted the Clinton administration foreign policy since...1994.... Occupying the chair of the Security Council...Holbrooke took the unprecedented step of inviting Helms to address the world's most senior diplomatic forum.... They sat there politely listening as Helms scolded them for their 'ingratitude' to the U.S. taxpayer who...was growing increasingly impatient with [the UN's] attempts to deprive the United States of its sovereignty.... The idea that the UN is threatening U.S. sovereignty by trying to impose some sort of world government on American soil may be, frankly, a little bizarre, but it has a surprising degree of traction of the right flank of the Republican Party.... The pattern is to deny the UN the authority or the means to intervene effectively and then to blame it when things go badly. Helms is hardly representative of American thinking about the UN or anything else. But the Clinton administration's failure to challenge him head-on has left it in the position where Helms rather than Holbrooke is presented to the UN Security Council as the de facto voice of America. And that's not going to do much to promote the idea of U.S. global leadership."

"However Long Overdue The Recognition Is, It Is To Be Welcomed"

The liberal, independent Sunday Independent held (1/23), "That it has taken until now for the United States to recognize that AIDS in Africa is a crisis of apocalyptic proportions is not surprising, given the self-centredness of the U.S. media. However long overdue the recognition is, it is to be welcomed... Last week the UN Security Council, under the new presidency of Richard Holbrooke...dedicated its first meeting of the year to the issue of AIDS in Africa.... It was after a trip to Africa last year, when Holbrooke and his wife confronted the myriad images of the disease...that he put the item on the Security Council's agenda.... January is Africa Month at the UN.... But aside from a proposal by Gore to increase U.S. expenditure on anti-AIDS relief for developing countries...there is little to show for the UN's display of concern and African diplomats are speculating whether words will translate into tangible assistance.

"That Holbrooke and Gore have their own political agendas is not beside the point: Presidential hopeful Gore has now surely succeeded in winning over black and gay voters.... Holbrooke, who is allegedly making a bid to become Gore's secretary of state, is also well served by raising two issues--the Great Lakes conflicts and AIDS--to an unprecendentedly high profile. Whatever the role of the U.S. and UN internal politics, if the effect of this intense focus is that the wealthy West keeps its eye on the 20 million Africans who have AIDS...we welcome it. Africa desperately needs the world's help, if only to galvanize its own leaders. If the American media and politicians are willing to give the issue this much attention, why are the African media and politicians not? There is no time to insist on African solutions. As the absence of African heads of state at the AIDS conference in Lusaka last September proved, they have not been forthcoming."

"Three Cheers For Ambition"

Independent Business Day (1/24) editorialized: "Three cheers for ambition.... Holbrooke's ambitions appear to have provided a brief window of opportunity for Africa to be high on the UN's agenda.... Most important from the African perspective, his newfound interest seems to have given...Kofi Annan an opening to propose deployment of a substantial multinational force to the Democratic Republic of Congo in support of cease-fire observers... The deployment of peacekeepers to the Congo has been contentious.... Those closest to the process...are keen to see a significant UN force in the Congo. Besides helping stabilize the situation on the ground, the UN presence could significantly increase pressure on the belligerents to seek a political solution to the conflict.

"But the permanent members of the Security Council have been reluctant to get involved.... Besides worries over costs, they appear, not entirely without reason, to harbor a fear of an African quagmire binding their troops for years.... Resolving the Congo conflict is one of the keys to creating peace, stability, and democracy in the entire region, including Angola, where the West has growing oil interests. For South Africa, there can be little doubt about the importance of making the UN involvement work. South Africans should brace themselves for the potential risks and rewards of deploying SANDF troops under the UN flag."

"Red Herring At The UN"

Independent Business Day averred (1/13): "Some consider Holbrooke's Africa Month more theater than substance. They worry that the United States is putting up a smokescreen of concern for the continent to shroud its reluctance to get involved in the Congo. For South Africa's ambassador, Dumisani Kumalo, and many of his colleagues, the big African issue before the council has to be the Congo. Africans, he says, have brokered a peace.... It is high time the council throws its full weight behind the Lusaka cease-fire agreement.... Kumalo's argument is valid. Congo week will perhaps decide whether Africa Month is really little more than a school of red herrings to mask the council's unwillingness to do its duty in the Congo--a duty it has not shirked when the terrain is Europe or the Middle East."

TANZANIA: "Holbrooke's Remarks"

The independent African declared (1/11): "We have no doubt about what Ambassador Holbrooke said in his address to the UN Security Council, where he underlined his country's commitment to the African continent. Holbrooke would be right that Africa matters to Washington, but we have a feeling that the continent in many cases gets too little, and often too late. Africa matters to Washington and other Western countries, Yes, indeed. But it only matters after so many others on the priority list. This has always been demonstrated by the kind and amount of support that the West gives to emergencies and crises that occur in those countries. It is our hope that the United States and other Western countries will this century give Africa fairer treatment."

ZAMBIA: "UN Dilly-Dallying Too Long, Send In Peacekeepers Now"

The GRZ-owned Zambia Daily Mail (1/24) commented that "President Chiluba's message to the United Nations special Security Council to offer assistance to the Democratic Republic of Congo peace process now and not later is right on.... The United Nations has been dilly-dallying for too long. The time to act is now. The Democratic Republic of Congo conflict has already claimed thousands of lives. DROC cannot afford to shed more blood. The world governing body insists that the skirmishes must end before any support will be rendered. This is what we find most unfair to Africa. It is clear that the UN is applying double standards in the way it responds to conflicts in the world with a clear bias for Europe and Asia while Africa gets lukewarm reaction. Why should the United Nations set different standards for its members in

the way that conflicts must be resolved? Other countries do not stop fighting but are still assisted financially, materially and with peacekeeping forces. East Timor received assistance a few days after the fighting started and aid has continued. Kosovo was aided after the NATO bombings stopped. While world leaders debate whether or not to help the implementation of a peace pact in the DROC, hundreds of lives are being lost daily. It is more than likely that most lives will be lost for as long as the full implementation of the cease-fire is delayed.

"However, the United Nations has the power to avoid this unnecessary loss of life. Africa is an integral part of the United Nations and its views should be respected. It is a fact that the signatories to the Lusaka Peace Accord lack the financial muscle to fund a successful implementation of the cease-fire. This is where the United Nations must come in. Logistical support is necessary for the pact to be a success. Many countries have expressed willingness to send peacekeeping troops under the United Nations auspices to the DROC. The fact that the parties to the conflict have agreed to a cease-fire should be enough for the United Nations peacekeeping force, to which most African nations are ready to contribute, to go into the DROC and begin its work. The delay could lead to a genocide that no one, including the United Nations will be able to explain. The world must act now to save the DROC from destroying itself with a senseless civil war. "

"End The Silence"

More than a month after World AIDS day carried the theme "End The Silence," Rosemary Ikona, a member of the ruling MMD Party and a member of parliament, in an article in the independent Post (1/19), called on Zambia's HIV-positive leaders to publicly acknowledge their status. The Post also ran the following editorial: "While it is a well-known fact that most of our ministers and other very senior government officials are HIV positive (sic)...this should be no reason for their shying away from providing leadership in the fight against AIDS.... Although we will not go to the extent of urging political leaders to come out into the open about their HIV positive status...we would like to see more visible and committed leadership from them in this war--a war in which there is no surrender or retreat."

ZIMBABWE: "UN's Commitment Under Spotlight"

The government-controlled Sunday Mail (1/23) reprimanded the United States and Britain for failing to denounce the roles played by Uganda and Rwanda in the DROC: "The UN's commitment to Africa will come under the spotlight once more when it convenes a special session of the Security Council aimed at finding a durable solution to the conflict in the DROC. For a long time, Africa has held the view that it has never been given due attention by the UN and that despite the holding of the secretary-general post by Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali and the current incumbent, Dr. Kofi Annan, no real attention has been given to the continent. Those that pull the strings at the world body seem to hold the view that black blood is cheap and that there is no need to hurry to stop it from spilling. When conflicts arise elsewhere in the world, the UN moves with lighting speed and commits a lot of resources to finding a solution. The DROC is a case in point. Since the signing of the Lusaka cease-fire agreement, the UN has dithered and dilly-dallied in committing itself to send troops to monitor the implementation of the agreement. The SAD region and its erstwhile belligerents, Rwanda and Uganda, have done a lot to find a lasting solution to the crisis. The leaders of the countries on either side of the conflict now meet at such forums as the SADC summit.... What is now lacking is a catalyst to speed up the peace process and that is precisely the role of the UN. It is for this reason that all eyes will be fixed on the Security Council special session to see what resolutions and action plans will come out of it. Whatever it resolves will be judged against previous lethargic performances in Angola, Rwanda and Somalia, where it remained limp as thousands of people perished.

"Much of the UN's inertia stems from the reluctance by the United States and Britain to condemn Uganda and Rwanda for invading the DROC. They have never publicly acknowledged that the two countries had violated the UN Charter by invading a neighboring country. As late as last Friday, DROC President Laurent Kabila had delayed confirming his attendance at the Security Council special session, demanding that the United States should first condemn the roles played by Uganda and Rwanda in the conflict. Predictably the United States did not do so. We expect (Mr.) Kabila and his allies to continue demanding that a position be taken at the special session that makes it clear that what Uganda and Rwanda did in the DROC was wrong. Failure to do so would create a bad precedent and encourage those with expansionist ambitions. The session should be followed up by an immediate deployment of peacekeeping forces to the DROC. Most SADC countries, including South Africa, have indicated their willingness to contribute peacekeeping forces. We hope those offers will be taken up and an atmosphere created where the people of the Congo can chart their way forward on their own."

"Africa--Its Own Savior"

An editorial in the government-controlled daily Chronicle said (1/18), "African bloodbaths have rarely been ended with external assistance, even from those who amuse themselves with the belief that, like an egg, the rest of the world sits in their palm. Spates of conflicts in Africa have clearly demonstrated to those with the will to learn that Africans are their own saviors, and that to look to external forces for help can sometimes only help to prolong conflicts, as is the case in the DROC today. The UN has rhetorically supported the urgency for peace in the war between the Congolese army and rebels supported by Rwanda and Uganda. But that august body has done practically zero in terms of moving personnel into the area of conflict to police a restoration of peace. Just why is the UN dilly-dallying on the Congolese conflict? Is it because of its humiliation in Somalia and its other failure in Angola where the rebel UNITA movement is now reported to be involved in reprisal attacks across the border in Namibia where three nurses are said to be among those killed so far? Or is the UN's unwillingness to move swiftly into the DROC due to some sinister reason--for instance more pronounced interests of some powerful members of the security council which normally sanctions such interventions?

"It is no secret that some Western powers work through some of those who sponsor rebels against the DROC, and probably even provide funding for the rebels' war machinery, while the OAU maintains a deafening silence. It is pointless for the OAU to behave as though it were defunct while Africans elsewhere butcher each other, and then speak in shrill voices during its summits in Addis Ababa. With the rest of the continent now liberated from white minority rule, should it now not be the primary role of the OAU to ensure that continental peace is maintained in order for social and economic development to be stepped up?... On the DROC issue, because the UN has declared interest in helping to bring about lasting peace, it is incumbent on the world body to make known its real intentions, rather than keep the affected people in this region guessing, or even hoping against hope. There can be no world peace to speak of if certain parts of the globe are torn apart by wars which unleash refugee problems while making any meaningful development impossible. North-South cooperation should not manifest itself only in trade issues, where money matters. Peace and stability everywhere should be the prerequisite for global unity."

EUROPE

FRANCE: "France's New African Tune"

Mireille Duteil stressed in right-of-center weekly Le Point (1/21): "Paris has decided it wants a role to play in Central Africa, where the ousting of Mobutu, its ally, put France on the sidelines. One of two reasons France is showing new interest for Central Africa is that it is dead set against leaving a free rein to the United States. It is a fact that Washington is keeping a

discreet but constant presence in Rwanda and Uganda. And its UN Ambassador, Richard Holbrooke, is organizing an Africa month at the UN where the Central African conflict will be addressed, with Madeleine Albright presiding.... Cooperation Minister Josselin will of course be attending."

"Saving Peace In Former Zaire"

Stephen Smith wrote in left-of-center Liberation (1/25): "This is the last chance for peace for Congo-Kinshasa.... The international community's offer is as simple as the situation is complicated on the ground and the interests of the players are complex.... Faced with a completely 'unstructured' conflict, the international community has been tempted to give up.... The Africa conference results from the U.S. Ambassador to the UN Richard Holbrooke's recent tour of the region.... The question is, who in the end really wants peace? And who would be able to impose it? Contradictions abound, among the African players, but also within the international community."

THE NETHERLANDS: "Under Holbrooke, U.S. Committed To UN, Africa"

Wim Bossema wrote in influential liberal De Volkskrant (2/4): "Richard Holbrooke's Africa month is over. There has been a lot of talking about AIDS, refugees, and peace forces, but no promises were made. Nevertheless, Holbrooke is pleased because he had one other goal.... The Africans are disappointed in Richard Holbrooke's Africa month...where are the promises? The financing of a peace force for Congo-Kinshasa has not even been completed.... But Holbrooke had a totally different objective with his Africa month. He had his focus also aimed at the U.S. The new American UN ambassador wants the U.S. to play a positive leading role in the UN. During the month that he chaired the UNSC, he wanted to confront the U.S. Congress and the UN-haters in his own administration.... Under Holbrooke's leadership, the U.S. has raised major African problems: AIDS, refugees, and war. In doing this, Washington took co-responsibility for finding solutions that will cost money.... Holbrooke killed two birds with one stone: The Americans committed themselves to the UN and to Africa. For the moment, this does not do the Africans much good. The real job is yet to begin, Holbrooke admitted himself. But he managed to get the Americans involved. Without their money, the UN cannot do much."

MIDDLE EAST

ALGERIA: "The American Offensive"

Independent, French-language Le Maghreb opined on page one (1/26): "The United States, as the number one superpower, never does things halfway. The United States recently took over at the head of the United Nations Security Council and organized a month dedicated to Africa. The main topics to be debated are security, refugees, and other social and economic issues. The United States intends to take action, proven by the presence of both Vice President Gore and Secretary Albright at the UNSC. The Maghreb region is also specifically targeted by the United States, as shown by the Eizenstat initiative."

"U.S. Demonstrate Interest In Africa"

Independent, French-language La Tribune concluded (1/11): "Upon the United States' initiative, the UN Security Council dedicated a special session to Africa. The initiative constitutes evidence of increased U.S. interest in the black continent.... AIDS is not the only U.S. concern in Africa. The persistance of certain conflicts are also of great concern to U.S. interests in the region, given that promoting economic growth requires stability."

SOUTH ASIA

SRI LANKA: "Is Africa Another International Basket Case?"

A commentary by the UN-based Thalif Deen in the pro-business English weekly Sunday Times (1/30) said, "William Hartung of the New York based World Policy Institute says that it will take a long time before the U.S. could begin to undo the damage wrought by decades of misguided U.S. weapons transfers to African dictators like Zaire's Mobutu Sese Seko and Angolan rebel leader Jonas Savimbi.... Since 1996, the United States has been providing, on a cost-free basis, large quantities of second-hand surplus weapons from its army, navy and air force inventories. But most of the giveaways have to be refurbished, serviced and maintained by the cash-strapped countries costing millions of dollars in hard currency. Hartung says the United States should restrict the flow of weapons and training to Africa and provide economic support for sustainable development policies. This is the only way the United States could help create the conditions needed for peace and stability to take root."

EAST ASIA

CHINA: "Self-Interest Behind Effort For African Ties"

The official English-language China Daily held (1/15): "The United States recently became exceptionally concerned about the African continent. But it does not intend to help solve the thorny problems in Africa, but to seek its own economic and political benefits.... U.S. hypocrisy is also demonstrated by its selection of AIDS...a health issue, as the theme of the first meeting for 'the African Month'. The selection may be a trick Clinton adopted to help Vice President Al Gore gain the support of blacks and homosexuals in the upcoming presidential elections."

"U.S. Wants To Approach Africa"

Fu Fuyuan and Zhou Dewu argued in official Communist Party People's Daily (Renmin Ribao, 1/13): "By naming this January 'The Month of Africa' at the UN Security Council, President Clinton intends to make more diplomatic achievements during the rest of his term by expanding the relationship with Africa. It is believed that the United States is trying to show concern for Africa in order to boost its own image and pacify those African countries which criticize the United States for ignoring the Rwandan refugees and bombing Yugoslavia. Another explanation is that the United States is seeking resources and markets in Africa to ensure sustainable growth and expansion of its own economy. What puzzled media most was...[that] Al Gore spoke about neither armed disputes...nor the problem of refugees, but AIDS. Such a move indeed threw the African countries...into doubt about the United States' real intentions.... Some have connected Al Gore's trip to the UN...with the upcoming presidential elections."

PHILIPPINES: "Putting AIDS On The Front Burner At The UN"

A column by veteran journalist Beth Day Romulo in the top-circulation and conservative Manila Bulletin (1/27) said: "Now that the U.S. has finally started paying up on its back dues to the United Nations, and is assured of keeping its seat in the General Assembly, it is at long last in a position to exert some leadership at the United Nations. Fortuitously, this January is America's turn to take the presidency of the powerful UN Security Council.... As is his active, aggressive style, Holbrooke came in prepared for his newest job--as head of the Security Council. With only a month in office, he chose not to waste time. Before he took over on January 1, he made a trip to Africa to assess the plight of African nations, which are losing their working force and population by the millions through the scourge of AIDS.... AIDS, Vice President Al Gore pointed out in a speech before the Security Council, is far more than a humanitarian problem. By wiping out the labor force, it brings economic development to a grinding halt and threatens a nation's security. The Clinton administration is asking Congress for a U.S. $325 million budget

allocation to combat AIDS abroad. But that is a paltry amount when placed against the actual needs.... To educate the American Congress about how the UN Security Council operates, Mr. Holbrooke invited his old nemesis Senator Jesse Helms, who is America's harshest critic of the UN, and his foreign relations committee to attend the Council meeting as his guest. America is clearly using its turn at the Security Council to lead the world, as well as to inform the American private and government sectors, about the scourge that is destroying so much of economic progress and development in sub-Saharan Africa."

SINGAPORE: Money Or Your Life"

The pro-government Straits Times (1/26) editorial commented: "At current prices, drugs now widely available in the West to prolong the lives of HIV/AIDS victims are beyond the means of all but the wealthiest in developing countries.... Granted, drug companies are not charities, but is it part of their corporate mission to extract every last dollar from AIDS sufferers? The argument that they have to charge high prices to recoup their heavy investments in AIDS research is somewhat thin, considering that of the U.S. $200 billion now spent on AIDS worldwide, only U.S. $300 million is being spent on developing an effective preventive vaccine. Short of outright piracy, what can be done to get over this impasse?... Until the U.S. cooperates with its trading partners to assure that its 'trade policies do not hinder their efforts' to combat AIDS, as U.S. Vice President Al Gore promised it would recently, people will continue to die needlessly in countries like Thailand. The U.S. government just realise that what is at stake here is not intellectual property rights, but human rights."

"Holocaust In Africa"

The pro-government Straits Times opined (1/18): "The UN Security Council met last week to discuss the AIDS epidemic in Africa, the first time in history that it has taken up a health issue. That it did so is a measure of the extent to which the epidemic has gone beyond a localized tragedy. The U.S. vice president, Mr. Al Gore, who presided over the council meeting, promised his government would seek $323 million from Congress to fight AIDS worldwide and, hopefully, other countries will follow suit. In addition to such aid, First World countries must cease insisting that their drug companies have the exclusive right to license the drugs available to treat AIDS. If cheaply-produced drugs can save lives in Africa, let it be so; the world can refine patent rights later. But more than money, concern and a change in drug-licensing protocols is required to combat AIDS in Africa or elsewhere. Unless the stigma is erased, denial will continue; and unless the silence is smashed, African societies cannot come to grips with the root cause of the disease, which is behavioral. To say this is no more racist than it was homophobic to say that the behavior pattern of some homosexuals in the United States and Europe occasioned the spread of AIDS in the West. The brunt of international efforts in Africa must consist of helping Africans help educate Africans, especially men. The same can be said in efforts in Asia, where India might be the next epicenter of the disease, according to some experts."

WESTERN HEMISPHERE

CANADA: "Horror Of Rwanda Will Not Go Away"

In the liberal Toronto Star, correspondent Jonathan Power wrote (1/31): "The United Nations mandate for policing the truce in the Congo has expired, without the 500 military observers requested by Secretary General Kofi Annan being sent into the field. It remains to be seen whether the Security Council's recent decision to send a 6,000 strong force to police the very tentative truce in Sierra Leone will be acted on. At the moment, it seems more that doubtful. If the UN needs to beef up anything it needs to beef up its preventive diplomacy.

"That means developing a large cadre of people--not just a lone troubleshooter who flies in to meet the president--that can go into a situation of conflict, stay a year or more, and work at every level of society, not just at the very top."

"Blunt Talk About AIDS In Africa"

Columnist Marcus Gee asserted in the leading Globe and Mail (1/12): "Educating Africans about the dangers of AIDS is a big job. But if the experience of North America is any guide, nothing will happen unless people start speaking frankly about it. Mr. Gore should be congratulated."

##

For more information, please contact:

U.S. Department of State

Office of Research

Telephone: (202) 619-6511

10/29/99

# # #